Studies of Religion I (1 Viewer)

[pb1234]

can someone please post a copy of the exam multiple choice?

 

[hscwav2012]

Likely 48/50, although with the essay question back to pre-2009 style, so more likely 47/50. You're welcome.

It wouldn't be that high, a raw mark in the 90's wouldn't scale down. It would be around 44/45

 

[studybot]

Yeah you're right, >60 even for jut Christianity

Also, in the 2006 census 30% of Australians didn't state their religion or stated they had 'no religion'.
So, I completely agree with this : ))

 

[Genero]

Anyone hear about how everyone in the state went when the format of the essay was reverted to pre-2009?

 

[_Arsenal_]

I had a complete mind-blank when writing about Qutb and ended up writing 3-4 pages on BS - I did mention his "Social justice" views, Mahijad(?spelling), and a few other views within his text, but it was poorly done. If I get 11/20 for it, I'd be more than suprised. MC - 7/10 probably and Christianity section II, pretty good, 13-14/15. So overall, not that bad, but not great.

 

[c2topher]

Directly from a hsc marker
1.d
2.b
3.a
4.d
5.c
6.b
7.b
8.c
9.d
10.a

 

[George121]

For question 4 MC it was asking for the consequence of ecumenical dialogue or whatever
Is the formation of the uniting church a consequence or a benefit?

 

[studybot]

For question 4 MC it was asking for the consequence of ecumenical dialogue or whatever
Is the formation of the uniting church a consequence or a benefit?

Oh, that question.
It was regarding which church was formed as an influence of the ecumenical movement in Australia.
The word 'consequence' made me think too :I

 

[febebebe]

4 was D. The Uniting Church was formed as a result of ecumenical stuff from three littleys. I agree with your 9 and 10 however.

oh sorry brain freeze, yes, i put 4 as d too

 

[posh bitch]

I NEVER KNEW ANGICAN WAS MORE THAN ORTHODOX !! Grrrrrrr/ 9/10 for me

 

[posh bitch]

omg !
section 3, did we have to bring in the ethics and practice even though it only asked for person ?

 

[jaev1n]

omg !
section 3, did we have to bring in the ethics and practice even though it only asked for person ?

Yes, so many people made this mistake in our trial.
I'm led to believe we had to include all three sections in the extended response.

 

[pb1234]

omg !
section 3, did we have to bring in the ethics and practice even though it only asked for person ?

I didn't, the question clearly asked for person. In other questions they are a bit more broad, allowing you to use all 3 parts - but in this question it didn't

 

[Kieran95]

Yes, so many people made this mistake in our trial.
I'm led to believe we had to include all three sections in the extended response.

It specifically said 'significant PERSON' for a reason. You would only talk about all 3 on a broader question

 

[wavess]

It specifically said 'significant PERSON' for a reason. You would only talk about all 3 on a broader question

My teachers said yeah you do focus on that person, but you can also link it to the other aspects of the depth study.

 

[pb1234]

My teachers said yeah you do focus on that person, but you can also link it to the other aspects of the depth study.

I think that with the question from 2009-2011 this was needed, but since they changed back to the pre-2009 format - you were meant to focus entirely on the person. However, adding a couple of paragraphs in relating to the other aspects can't hurt, although i didn't choose too since the question was so specific.

 

[jaev1n]

It specifically said 'significant PERSON' for a reason. You would only talk about all 3 on a broader question

True, but from what I've heard from teachers is that no matter the question - you need to manipulate it so you can discuss all three sections.
I'm just saying I did what I was told to do. My response was 75% person 25% practice/ethics.
Who knows though lmao

 

[Kieran95]

True, but from what I've heard from teachers is that no matter the question - you need to manipulate it so you can discuss all three sections.
I'm just saying I did what I was told to do. My response was 75% person 25% practice/ethics.
Who knows though lmao

I'm pretty sure you would've been told this because just about no one predicted that they would revert back to the pre-2009 questions. Almost every teacher was expecting an open-ended question where you had the scope to talk about all three.

You may be right, but im 99.9% sure you were limited to just the significant person in this style question.

 

[jaev1n]

I'm pretty sure you would've been told this because just about no one predicted that they would revert back to the pre-2009 questions. Almost every teacher was expecting an open-ended question where you had the scope to talk about all three.

You may be right, but im 99.9% sure you were limited to just the significant person in this style question.

Probably right then, quite a lot of people in my class did all three, at least only 1.5 pages out of my response was the other two!

 

[reps2g]

well considering that it was a "too an extent" question.. coudln't we argue using a "however" like in modern history? In saying that.. i only discussed the significant person aspect..